News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

The first ever Holy Synod meeting chaired by Pope Tawadros II took place this morning and lasted several hours. The meeting was attended by 91 bishops. Seven bishops were absent. The Holy Synod will meet every six months.

Bishop Raphael, bishop of churches in central Cairo, and one of the final candidates for Papacy, was appointed secretary of the Holy Synod, a positioned considered to be the second most powerful in the Coptic Church. He will be replacing Bishop Bishoy of Kafr El-Sheikh, Damietta, who has held this position since 1985. Bishop Thomas of Qusiya, Bishop Youssef of the southern United States and Bishop Apollo of South Sinai were all appointed as his secretaries.

Fr Seraphim Al Soriany, one of the final candidates for papacy, was appointed as secretary for affairs of the diaspora. He served in three churches in the United Kingdom for 12 years. These were St George & St Athanasius in Newcastle, St. Mary & St. George in Nottingham as well as one of the churches in Wales.The church also announced a plan to increase its online presence. A new website is being built for the Cathedral of St Mark. New Facebook and Twitter accounts are being made for His Holiness Pope Tawadros. For the first time in the history of the church, there is a push to use modern technology to facilitate communication to the congregation.

Maybe this explains the meeting between Anba Bachomius and Anba Raphael before the Papal lotto.

Did he meet with all three candidates or just Anba Raphael? Isn't it quite improper that he meet specifically with only one of the candidates in the lot?

I don't think so. The Church is not by nature a democracy, but a theocracy. There would be nothing wrong even if H.H. or a senior bishop expressed strongly a preference for one candidate. In the old days, Popes would often even say who God's will was for their successor. Electing a secretary by ballot is one way for the Synod to express it's will fairly, but there's no need for this. There is certainly no need for everyone to keep secret their desires.

Did he meet with all three candidates or just Anba Raphael? Isn't it quite improper that he meet specifically with only one of the candidates in the lot?

The only reported meeting was with Anba Raphael. And Anba Youssef is effectively the secretary outside of Egypt.

Anba Bachomius is quite pragmatic and an excellent manager, knowing how to get his will through without offending his top players. He is a product of the Sunday School generation that has embraced humanistic ideals and treats the Church as an organization headed by a man, not God.

In any case, now with the top two positions occupied by general bishops, there is little hope they will abolish this innovation of general bishops. Anba Raphael has said he is all for this rank.

It seems that all those who opposed the election of bishops to Papacy, among them priests and bishops, really opposed just the ascension of Metropolitan Bishoy to the Papacy. It was personal, never driven by the sound principle and Orthodox faith. Once Anba Bishoy was eliminated, they were all praising Anba Bachomius for his "leadership" and would accept anyone he puts on the throne. It is a great disappointment.

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

The only reported meeting was with Anba Raphael. And Anba Youssef is effectively the secretary outside of Egypt.

What about Abouna Seraphim el-Souriani? As I understand it, Anba Youssef is secretary to Anba Raphael, not one of the Pope's secretaries - so Abouna Seraphim, not Bishop Youssef, is effectively replacing Anba Youannes and co (I thought you would support this).

In any case, now with the top two positions occupied by general bishops, there is little hope they will abolish this innovation of general bishops. Anba Raphael has said he is all for this rank.

Surely Anba Raphael could be made diocesan, and then the rank could be discontinued.When did Anba Raphael make such a statement - it must have been recently.If he did indeed make this statement, one has to ask what happened to the Anba Raphael who "embraces all elements of Coptic Orthodox spirituality".

As for your pessimistic outlook (I'm not being critical here), I guess time will tell.

metropolitan pachomius is a very noble man who has reconciled many different people in the church through his very wise leadership in difficult times when our church was under attack by the devil.

he has spent many sleepless hours in prayer and discussion giving wise advise and consulting with all the areas of the church about the patriarchal selection process. after the repose of our dear and wise patriarch shenouda 3rd, he arranged for all the churches of the 15 - 20 million coptic Christians to collect comments from their people about the process.

i was one of those 20 million. i took the opportunity to write down my point (no diocesan bishops please on principle, i have no problems with any specific bishops) and there were very many more who said the same thing. i have spoken to very many coptic Christians in uk (most born in egypt or sudan, so fully understanding the native coptic culture) and they have been very content with how our wise metropolitan handled the political problems among some of our clergy.

having seen the enthronement video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHDNJV7P5-Qcopied and pasted from here:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47866.45.htmlthis does not resemble the appointing of a proud leader of an organisation of people.many times we can see patriarch tawadros 2nd (i mean the coptic one, but i also love the EO one)bending his head with humility and being moved to tears by the love and care offered to him by his brother bishops.he is fully aware that he is not worthy for this post and that it is a very hard job for which he needs protection from God and the prayers of all Christians.

i also know some people who know him (including abba seraphim, metropolitan of the british orthodox church) who give clear accounts of his wisdom and humility, and that of metropolitan pachomius.so for me, and for many others, there was nothing 'personal' in our opinions on the patriarchal selection process.it does seem that there are a dissatisfied few (i have only found them on the internet) and i pray God will bless them and calm their fears and use their zeal for orthodoxy to educate and encourage the rest of us.

Did he meet with all three candidates or just Anba Raphael? Isn't it quite improper that he meet specifically with only one of the candidates in the lot?

The only reported meeting was with Anba Raphael. And Anba Youssef is effectively the secretary outside of Egypt.

Anba Bachomius is quite pragmatic and an excellent manager, knowing how to get his will through without offending his top players. He is a product of the Sunday School generation that has embraced humanistic ideals and treats the Church as an organization headed by a man, not God.

In any case, now with the top two positions occupied by general bishops, there is little hope they will abolish this innovation of general bishops. Anba Raphael has said he is all for this rank.

It seems that all those who opposed the election of bishops to Papacy, among them priests and bishops, really opposed just the ascension of Metropolitan Bishoy to the Papacy. It was personal, never driven by the sound principle and Orthodox faith. Once Anba Bishoy was eliminated, they were all praising Anba Bachomius for his "leadership" and would accept anyone he puts on the throne. It is a great disappointment.

No, it was not just personal. There is nothing wrong with standing up and declaring that a particular candidate is unworthy. For me, the only proper decision would be to select a monk who is not a bishop. But if they were going to insist on including bishops, then it would be better to include only the general bishop who would not be abandoning sees rather than the proper bishops. And if they were going to include proper bishops, then at least it would be better to exclude those seeking it and select only from those fleeing it.

We fought, and God miraculously granted us an altar ballot free from those bishops who were arguing for their on candidacy and who engage in simony, and that included a monk. By human means, we never could have eliminated the worst candidates. God blessed our imperfect efforts to give us this. But we still offered an imperfect offering by including bishops on the altar lot.

Now we have a Pope who did not campaign for the position, who did not seek it. Pope Tawadros is in no way guilty, they synod did wrong by selecting a bishop, but Pope Tawadros did nothing wrong, so we shoudn't hold this against him. There is no reason not to say "axios". Now the time for fighting over the issue is passed, and we must submit in obedience to our new Pope. Such obedience does not include supporting the innovation of general bishops, which are against sound Orthodox ecclesiology, but opposition to this should be respectful.

I know that Fr. Athanasius Iskander's opposition seemed to be only against Anba Bishoi, but that is because that was the bishop arguing loudly that bishops should be eligible. that is what he was fightings against, including diocesen bishops. He would have fought just as strongly against any diocesen bishop. It was not about personality, but about respecting the canons. His interpretation is that canon 15 does not apply to general bishops. We may disagree over that, but we have to respect his effort and sacrifice in defending the canons.

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

Logged

“Many times I spoke, and as a result felt sorry, but I never regretted my silence.” -Saint Arsenius the Great

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

I'm confused, if as a General Bishop, HH did not have any canonical jurisdiction, then how is it uncanonical to elect him as Pope? He certainly didn't change dioceses, seeing as he never had one to begin with.

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

I'm confused, if as a General Bishop, HH did not have any canonical jurisdiction, then how is it uncanonical to elect him as Pope? He certainly didn't change dioceses, seeing as he never had one to begin with.

Note that I am not implacably opposed to General Bishops becoming Pope, but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

However, I do think that a monk should be exclusively chosen for the following reasons:1) General bishop is not an original rank - it was made up in the past 50 years. It also gives an inordinate amount of power to the Bishop of Alexandria, since they are all under him, despite some of them serving in England, New Jersey, El Beheira. So choosing one as Pope would legitimise this rank further.2) Also, if we look at the spirit at the law not the letter, HH was General Bishop: Auxilliary Bishop of El Beheira - so he was effectively diocesan.Anyway, you can read 30+ pages of discussion about this on tasbeha.org if you really want to.

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

I'm confused, if as a General Bishop, HH did not have any canonical jurisdiction, then how is it uncanonical to elect him as Pope? He certainly didn't change dioceses, seeing as he never had one to begin with.

Note that I am not implacably opposed to General Bishops becoming Pope, but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

However, I do think that a monk should be exclusively chosen for the following reasons:1) General bishop is not an original rank - it was made up in the past 50 years. It also gives an inordinate amount of power to the Bishop of Alexandria, since they are all under him, despite some of them serving in England, New Jersey, El Beheira. So choosing one as Pope would legitimise this rank further.2) Also, if we look at the spirit at the law not the letter, HH was General Bishop: Auxilliary Bishop of El Beheira - so he was effectively diocesan.Anyway, you can read 30+ pages of discussion about this on tasbeha.org if you really want to.

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

I'm confused, if as a General Bishop, HH did not have any canonical jurisdiction, then how is it uncanonical to elect him as Pope? He certainly didn't change dioceses, seeing as he never had one to begin with.

Note that I am not implacably opposed to General Bishops becoming Pope, but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

However, I do think that a monk should be exclusively chosen for the following reasons:1) General bishop is not an original rank - it was made up in the past 50 years. It also gives an inordinate amount of power to the Bishop of Alexandria, since they are all under him, despite some of them serving in England, New Jersey, El Beheira. So choosing one as Pope would legitimise this rank further.2) Also, if we look at the spirit at the law not the letter, HH was General Bishop: Auxilliary Bishop of El Beheira - so he was effectively diocesan.Anyway, you can read 30+ pages of discussion about this on tasbeha.org if you really want to.

What's the difference between General and Auxiliary Bishops?

Since I don't know formal Arabic, I don't really know if "Auxilliary Bishop" was his official title (although I did see many news reports refer to HH as such). In any case, he is at least General Bishop of El Beheira, and that is still effectively diocesan.

If the issue of general bishops not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to Anba Tawadros name? There was a monk in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to Abouna Raphael's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

I'm confused, if as a General Bishop, HH did not have any canonical jurisdiction, then how is it uncanonical to elect him as Pope? He certainly didn't change dioceses, seeing as he never had one to begin with.

Note that I am not implacably opposed to General Bishops becoming Pope, but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

However, I do think that a monk should be exclusively chosen for the following reasons:1) General bishop is not an original rank - it was made up in the past 50 years. It also gives an inordinate amount of power to the Bishop of Alexandria, since they are all under him, despite some of them serving in England, New Jersey, El Beheira. So choosing one as Pope would legitimise this rank further.2) Also, if we look at the spirit at the law not the letter, HH was General Bishop: Auxilliary Bishop of El Beheira - so he was effectively diocesan.Anyway, you can read 30+ pages of discussion about this on tasbeha.org if you really want to.

What's the difference between General and Auxiliary Bishops?

Since I don't know formal Arabic, I don't really know if "Auxilliary Bishop" was his official title (although I did see many news reports refer to HH as such). In any case, he is at least General Bishop of El Beheira, and that is still effectively diocesan.

He was an auxiliary bishop to HE Metropolitan Pachomius, who continues to be the diocesan bishop of this region. Basically the general bishop is an auxiliary bishop, in some cases assisting in dioceses like Anba Tawadros was, and in other cases serving a more functional role under the patriarch, like Pope Shenouda was doing as General Bishop of Education before he became Patriarch.

Are Copts the only ones who still adhere to the ancient canon about not choosing their patriarchs from among bishops? I know the Armenian Church picks its patriarchs and catholicoi from among its bishops. In fact, we even once had a Catholicos of Cilicia become the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin.

Are there any other Orthodox Churches that observe the old canon about not doing this? Specifically, I'm wondering about the Ethiopian and Syriac Orthodox Churches.

Are Copts the only ones who still adhere to the ancient canon about not choosing their patriarchs from among bishops? I know the Armenian Church picks its patriarchs and catholicoi from among its bishops. In fact, we even once had a Catholicos of Cilicia become the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin.

Are there any other Orthodox Churches that observe the old canon about not doing this? Specifically, I'm wondering about the Ethiopian and Syriac Orthodox Churches.

Yes, I believe the Copts are the only ones who still adhere to this. (perhaps not anymore)Father Peter produced a very good series of articles on this issue, and part of his analysis was that the reasons the Copts care more about this is because we had a local synod that was more forceful on this issue than, say, Nicaea.

This has nothing to do with Anba Tawadrous’ personality, and this is exactly the point. It should not be personal.

The difference between a decision influenced by personal motives and another based on principles is easy to discern. When based on principles, you can change the persons and the outcome should be the same. Which it is not, in our case.

They eliminated Anba Bishoy, and everyone was so happy and gave Anba Bachomius a carte blanche to put whoever HE wants on the throne. He picked his son.

Only a selected few who saw the danger of including bishops in the final five candidates, like the Alexandrian people, objected. They were clear that the principle of having a bishop, specific or general, is rejected. They maintained their integrity by continuing their strong stance against the election of bishops, and even attacked Anba Raphael, the very popular general bishop, in the liturgies the five candidates celebrated together. They want an ordained Pope, with the power of the Spirit, and not a CEO to run their affairs.

What is this auxiliary bishop rank?

An auxiliary, a general or a side kick bishop has no meaning.

He is either a Shepherd of a flock, and he then becomes a bishop just like the diocesan bishop, or he is a secretary, and then he is not a bishop, regardless of what was said during his ordination.

Anba Tawadrous is not different. He was the bishop of Behera. Full stop. He must have been in charge of some people there, or what else does his episcopate mean? If he was not, and he was just running errands for Anba Bachomius, then we should know and he would have been nominally a bishop but really a secretary.

The fact that Anba Shenouda ordained him General or Specific or side kick or Anba Bachomius secretary does not matter. He is a bishop.

More importantly, there is no proper ordination for the Pope, the bishop of Alexandria and the orphaned dioceses like Canada. They were struggling to find a replacement for the term "ordination". They started with "seating" like in a concert and then they switched to "tanseeb" (erection) and they ended up with enthronement.

No Holy Spirit, no commission by God, nothing. It is a promotion to a CEO position of a company and not an ordination of the Pope.

He knows it. So we cannot excuse him from accepting a rank he is not qualified for and was not called by God for it. He is not coming through the door. The Lord has not excluded this possibility in John 10. Some shepherds will “climb” and enter through some other mean than the door. They will be shepherds, but not good ones. Consult John 10 for mote information on how the Lord describes them. Ironic that this particular reading is the one read in the “seating” of the bishops made Popes. They start their rank by being reminded who they have become. Sad.

On a side note, and in case the legitimacy of the general bishop rank is further discussed, the bishop reflects Christ and his presence is the presence of Christ in the Church.

This is why we chant “Ek Esmaraout and Epouro” and other hymns addressed to the Lord when a bishop enters the Church.

This is why we offer incense to the bishop.

There is no specific Christ and no general Christ. There is one Christ.

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Fr. Athanasius, Anba Sarapion, and Anba Youssef all spoke out despite potential consequences to themselves. I do not believe that a single one of them did so out of hatred for Anba Bishoi, but based on the principle that a bishop cannot leave his see. I had conversations with Fr. Athanasius about this topic personally, and I know for a fact that he would have opposed any diocesen bishop equally.

These saintly men feel that it is ok to elect a general bishop, since they do not have a see to leave. You disagree with their interpretation. So do I quite frankly. But to say that they were just waging a personal attack rather than one based on principle is wrong, judgemental, uncharitable, and serves no purpose.

Anba Tawadros is our Pope. Surely now we can discuss the issues surrounding the office of the general bishop, instituted by Pope Kyrollos and Pope Shenouda, without the need to attack the persons of those who opposed a diocesen bishop but do not share our opinion about general bishops, and without showing a lack of reverence to H.H. Pope Tawadros, our father.

Virtually every tradition today has auxiliary bishops. These are men who are ordained bishops but not enthroned, not seated on the chair of a cathedral, but rather assigned to assist the bishop of a diocese. When that bishop reposed, the auxiliary bishop might be enthroned and become the diocesen bishop there, or another might be ordained for the position and the auxiliary left assisting. The Coptic tradition has khouri-episcopos: rural bishops that may have served much the same purpose, but in fact been senior presbyters with delegated authority. Recently, we have adopted the auxiliary bishop model used by everyone else.

I agree with you that it is not proper to have a bishop who is not the father of a diocese. But every tradition has it today, and so the issue of general bishops and whether they are eligible for the throne of Alexandria needs a much more detailed and careful reply than your offhand dismissal. Certainly the position of those who oppose the transfer of a diocesen bishop, but who approve of enthroning a general bishop who has not been enthroned anywhere but is assisting an enthroned or ruling bishop in a diocese (often even the diocese of Alexandria, though not in this case), is not nearly as untenable, contradictory, or clearly personal and self serving as you claim. Surely we can disagree without disrespecting our fathers.

This has nothing to do with Anba Tawadrous’ personality, and this is exactly the point. It should not be personal.

The difference between a decision influenced by personal motives and another based on principles is easy to discern. When based on principles, you can change the persons and the outcome should be the same. Which it is not, in our case.

They eliminated Anba Bishoy, and everyone was so happy and gave Anba Bachomius a carte blanche to put whoever HE wants on the throne. He picked his son.

Only a selected few who saw the danger of including bishops in the final five candidates, like the Alexandrian people, objected. They were clear that the principle of having a bishop, specific or general, is rejected. They maintained their integrity by continuing their strong stance against the election of bishops, and even attacked Anba Raphael, the very popular general bishop, in the liturgies the five candidates celebrated together. They want an ordained Pope, with the power of the Spirit, and not a CEO to run their affairs.

What is this auxiliary bishop rank?

An auxiliary, a general or a side kick bishop has no meaning.

He is either a Shepherd of a flock, and he then becomes a bishop just like the diocesan bishop, or he is a secretary, and then he is not a bishop, regardless of what was said during his ordination.

Anba Tawadrous is not different. He was the bishop of Behera. Full stop. He must have been in charge of some people there, or what else does his episcopate mean? If he was not, and he was just running errands for Anba Bachomius, then we should know and he would have been nominally a bishop but really a secretary.

The fact that Anba Shenouda ordained him General or Specific or side kick or Anba Bachomius secretary does not matter. He is a bishop.

More importantly, there is no proper ordination for the Pope, the bishop of Alexandria and the orphaned dioceses like Canada. They were struggling to find a replacement for the term "ordination". They started with "seating" like in a concert and then they switched to "tanseeb" (erection) and they ended up with enthronement.

No Holy Spirit, no commission by God, nothing. It is a promotion to a CEO position of a company and not an ordination of the Pope.

He knows it. So we cannot excuse him from accepting a rank he is not qualified for and was not called by God for it. He is not coming through the door. The Lord has not excluded this possibility in John 10. Some shepherds will “climb” and enter through some other mean than the door. They will be shepherds, but not good ones. Consult John 10 for mote information on how the Lord describes them. Ironic that this particular reading is the one read in the “seating” of the bishops made Popes. They start their rank by being reminded who they have become. Sad.

On a side note, and in case the legitimacy of the general bishop rank is further discussed, the bishop reflects Christ and his presence is the presence of Christ in the Church.

This is why we chant “Ek Esmaraout and Epouro” and other hymns addressed to the Lord when a bishop enters the Church.

This is why we offer incense to the bishop.

There is no specific Christ and no general Christ. There is one Christ.

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

How was that invalid? You seem to be saying (in my imperfect understanding) that you don't believe God was involved in the process. I'm saying the fact that HH was chosen, and that diocesan bishops were not in the final running, shows that (again, in my flawed and imperfect understanding) God does not see general bishops as unqualified for the papal seat but He does diocesan bishops.

Like I said, though, you guys are more knowledgable than I am in these matters and I'm just telling it as I see it. I don't mean to be confrontrational or anything, just trying to learn more.

Logged

“Many times I spoke, and as a result felt sorry, but I never regretted my silence.” -Saint Arsenius the Great

But to say that they were just waging a personal attack rather than one based on principle is wrong, judgemental, uncharitable, and serves no purpose.

Let us not fashion the discussion in this manner.

It is the easiest way to dismiss any valid argument when all other means of discounting it have failed.

And it is also easily reciprocated. Someone could argue that the responses by a certain priest to Anba Bishoy's nonsense were aggressive, uncharitable, lacking love, and lacking respect to a bishop. I definitely do not believe so, but as long as we are discussing sentiments and not principles, anything will pass.

These saintly men feel that it is ok to elect a general bishop, since they do not have a see to leave.

They do have a flock to leave, otherwise, how are they bishops?

This is quite frankly a joke. So these saintly men think that Anba Raphael, in case Anba Bachomius made him Pope, would have no flock to leave, when he is responsible of about 20 churches and actually the majority of the youth in Cairo?

They stopped in the middle of the way. They said a half truth.

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

What about Abouna Seraphim el-Souriani? As I understand it, Anba Youssef is secretary to Anba Raphael, not one of the Pope's secretaries - so Abouna Seraphim, not Bishop Youssef, is effectively replacing Anba Youannes and co (I thought you would support this).

Yes, Anba Youssef helps Anba Raphael but I think he will be effectively the secretary of the Synod in North America.

Which Abouna Seraphim El-Souriani do you refer to? The legitimate Papal candidate?

The secretary of the Pope is a married priest, not a monk. He was working with Anba Bachomius and has stayed. Of course I am happy Anba Youaness is out.

Quote

If he did indeed make this statement, one has to ask what happened to the Anba Raphael who "embraces all elements of Coptic Orthodox spirituality".

He embraces all of them, except this one.

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

This has nothing to do with Anba Tawadrous’ personality, and this is exactly the point. It should not be personal.

The difference between a decision influenced by personal motives and another based on principles is easy to discern. When based on principles, you can change the persons and the outcome should be the same. Which it is not, in our case.

They eliminated Anba Bishoy, and everyone was so happy and gave Anba Bachomius a carte blanche to put whoever HE wants on the throne. He picked his son.

Only a selected few who saw the danger of including bishops in the final five candidates, like the Alexandrian people, objected. They were clear that the principle of having a bishop, specific or general, is rejected. They maintained their integrity by continuing their strong stance against the election of bishops, and even attacked Anba Raphael, the very popular general bishop, in the liturgies the five candidates celebrated together. They want an ordained Pope, with the power of the Spirit, and not a CEO to run their affairs.

What is this auxiliary bishop rank?

An auxiliary, a general or a side kick bishop has no meaning.

He is either a Shepherd of a flock, and he then becomes a bishop just like the diocesan bishop, or he is a secretary, and then he is not a bishop, regardless of what was said during his ordination.

Anba Tawadrous is not different. He was the bishop of Behera. Full stop. He must have been in charge of some people there, or what else does his episcopate mean? If he was not, and he was just running errands for Anba Bachomius, then we should know and he would have been nominally a bishop but really a secretary.

The fact that Anba Shenouda ordained him General or Specific or side kick or Anba Bachomius secretary does not matter. He is a bishop.

More importantly, there is no proper ordination for the Pope, the bishop of Alexandria and the orphaned dioceses like Canada. They were struggling to find a replacement for the term "ordination". They started with "seating" like in a concert and then they switched to "tanseeb" (erection) and they ended up with enthronement.

No Holy Spirit, no commission by God, nothing. It is a promotion to a CEO position of a company and not an ordination of the Pope.

He knows it. So we cannot excuse him from accepting a rank he is not qualified for and was not called by God for it. He is not coming through the door. The Lord has not excluded this possibility in John 10. Some shepherds will “climb” and enter through some other mean than the door. They will be shepherds, but not good ones. Consult John 10 for mote information on how the Lord describes them. Ironic that this particular reading is the one read in the “seating” of the bishops made Popes. They start their rank by being reminded who they have become. Sad.

On a side note, and in case the legitimacy of the general bishop rank is further discussed, the bishop reflects Christ and his presence is the presence of Christ in the Church.

This is why we chant “Ek Esmaraout and Epouro” and other hymns addressed to the Lord when a bishop enters the Church.

This is why we offer incense to the bishop.

There is no specific Christ and no general Christ. There is one Christ.

In fact, for the first century plus after St. Mark the Evangelist, the Archbishop was often an auxiliary bishop/chorbishop. The Synod consisted only of 12 such bishops and the Archbishop, the 12 consecrated or elevating the successor as the need arose.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

How was that invalid? You seem to be saying (in my imperfect understanding) that you don't believe God was involved in the process. I'm saying the fact that HH was chosen, and that diocesan bishops were not in the final running, shows that (again, in my flawed and imperfect understanding) God does not see general bishops as unqualified for the papal seat but He does diocesan bishops.

Like I said, though, you guys are more knowledgable than I am in these matters and I'm just telling it as I see it. I don't mean to be confrontrational or anything, just trying to learn more.

Thanks for being non-confrontational. It is a breath of fresh air from the thread on tasbeha.org when everyone began abusing me for suggesting that God is not involved in the process if there is sin or if there is no synergy on our part.

If people do something wrong, are motivated by their own desires and political power, then how can we say that God is involved in the process? If God controlled every process on Earth, there would have been no fall, we would still be in the Garden of Eden. But God gives us men free will.

Note that the above is a general comment only, since only God knows the true hearts of men; the point is that, just because it happened, even in the church, doesn't mean that it was God's will - there have been many instances when God's will was not done, first and foremost, every time we ourselves sin.

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

How was that invalid? You seem to be saying (in my imperfect understanding) that you don't believe God was involved in the process. I'm saying the fact that HH was chosen, and that diocesan bishops were not in the final running, shows that (again, in my flawed and imperfect understanding) God does not see general bishops as unqualified for the papal seat but He does diocesan bishops.

Like I said, though, you guys are more knowledgable than I am in these matters and I'm just telling it as I see it. I don't mean to be confrontrational or anything, just trying to learn more.

Thanks for being non-confrontational. It is a breath of fresh air from the thread on tasbeha.org when everyone began abusing me for suggesting that God is not involved in the process if there is sin or if there is no synergy on our part.

If people do something wrong, are motivated by their own desires and political power, then how can we say that God is involved in the process? If God controlled every process on Earth, there would have been no fall, we would still be in the Garden of Eden. But God gives us men free will.

Note that the above is a general comment only, since only God knows the true hearts of men; the point is that, just because it happened, even in the church, doesn't mean that it was God's will - there have been many instances when God's will was not done, first and foremost, every time we ourselves sin.

I understand all that. But the whole process was transparent so that people would make sure nothing is done wrong. We got rid of those who were after political power or desired to be pope. That was the whole point of the selection process. HH even tried to remove himself from the running but stayed in due to Anba Pachomius request.

Logged

“Many times I spoke, and as a result felt sorry, but I never regretted my silence.” -Saint Arsenius the Great

By this reasoning, if we put the names of two Muslims and one Christian in the box, and then, if a Muslim is chosen, say: "If the issue of Muslims not becoming pope is so important, why did God guide the boy's hand to the Muslim's name? There was a Christian in the final three choices. Why didn't God guide his hand to the Christian's name instead if he is the more proper and canonical choice?"

but I was just replying to lord doog's argument which was invalid.

How was that invalid? You seem to be saying (in my imperfect understanding) that you don't believe God was involved in the process. I'm saying the fact that HH was chosen, and that diocesan bishops were not in the final running, shows that (again, in my flawed and imperfect understanding) God does not see general bishops as unqualified for the papal seat but He does diocesan bishops.

Like I said, though, you guys are more knowledgable than I am in these matters and I'm just telling it as I see it. I don't mean to be confrontrational or anything, just trying to learn more.

Thanks for being non-confrontational. It is a breath of fresh air from the thread on tasbeha.org when everyone began abusing me for suggesting that God is not involved in the process if there is sin or if there is no synergy on our part.

If people do something wrong, are motivated by their own desires and political power, then how can we say that God is involved in the process? If God controlled every process on Earth, there would have been no fall, we would still be in the Garden of Eden. But God gives us men free will.

Note that the above is a general comment only, since only God knows the true hearts of men; the point is that, just because it happened, even in the church, doesn't mean that it was God's will - there have been many instances when God's will was not done, first and foremost, every time we ourselves sin.

I understand all that. But the whole process was transparent so that people would make sure nothing is done wrong. We got rid of those who were after political power or desired to be pope. That was the whole point of the selection process. HH even tried to remove himself from the running but stayed in due to Anba Pachomius request.

Not really. eg, the selection of the 5 names was not at all transparent, and just as well, otherwise I don't think they could've removed the self-seeking names

I understand all that. But the whole process was transparent so that people would make sure nothing is done wrong. We got rid of those who were after political power or desired to be pope. That was the whole point of the selection process. HH even tried to remove himself from the running but stayed in due to Anba Pachomius request.

No. Anba Tawadros never asked to be removed. Anba Raphael did.

And the whole process since the nomination of the seven heads and the ten thorns was never transparent. The draw was a fitting conclusion to a scandalous process.

There is something called conflict of interest. And if Anba Bach was running this draw in Burger King for a pair of wraps, the contestants would have objected.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 04:25:03 PM by Stavro »

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

You cannot figure it out for yourself?

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?).

In the Indian Orthodox Church, Consecration to the Bishopric and Enthronement as Diocesan/Metropolitan are usually done separately. Multiple Bishops are usually consecrated on the same date together and then they are Enthroned in their respective Dioceses/Metropolia at a later date.

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

Usually Ordination to the Bishopric and Enthronement as Diocesan/Metropolitan are done separately.

So no-one is ordained to the bishophric (which includes the patriarchate, catholicosate, etc) twice?

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

Usually Ordination to the Bishopric and Enthronement as Diocesan/Metropolitan are done separately.

So no-one is ordained to the bishophric (which includes the patriarchate, catholicosate, etc) twice?

There is only one Consecration, however, there can be multiple Enthronements.

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

Then there is another problem, as the Pope of Alexandria has long been consecrated and enthroned in Cairo, and the Patriarch of Antioch has been consecrated and enthroned in Damascus, and before that in the Saffron Monastery.

And it is a long standing canonical and ecclesiastical principle that a bishop may not interfere or even step into a diocese not his own, both in the EO and the OO canons and ecclesiology.

Nor can a bishop, once consecrated to the episcopacy, be reconsecrated again. The episcopate is one, the many holding it in common for the whole.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

Then there is another problem, as the Pope of Alexandria has long been consecrated and enthroned in Cairo, and the Patriarch of Antioch has been consecrated and enthroned in Damascus, and before that in the Saffron Monastery.

And it is a long standing canonical and ecclesiastical principle that a bishop may not interfere or even step into a diocese not his own, both in the EO and the OO canons and ecclesiology.

Nor can a bishop, once consecrated to the episcopacy, be reconsecrated again. The episcopate is one, the many holding it in common for the whole.

Isn't Antioch pretty much a Titular See by now? When was the last time an EO or OO Patriarch of Antioch set foot in Antioch?

I hate to interrupt the fun you are having conspiracy mongering, trash-talking your own Church, and discrediting your Church's leadership on a public forum; However, I would like to take you on a small tangent, if you don't object:

Do you guys consider the patriarchs and catholicoi of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches to be invalid because they were bishops before being elected to their present offices?

1. There is a difference between Egypt and other Orthodox churches, due to a more forceful ruling by one of our local synods (cf Fr Peter's articles)2. Any bishop who becomes patriarch is still valid as bishop for the diocese for which he was ordained. They are not a valid bishop of the new diocese eg Cilicia, since they were never ordained for this role (or is there a second ordination? what is the practice in other churches?). But I guess it is not as big a deal in other churches because of 1).

Usually Ordination to the Bishopric and Enthronement as Diocesan/Metropolitan are done separately.

So no-one is ordained to the bishophric (which includes the patriarchate, catholicosate, etc) twice?

There is only one Consecration, however, there can be multiple Enthronements.